Você está na página 1de 4

Case 1:18-cv-01336-TSC Document 26 Filed 11/06/19 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)
DANIEL A. UMBERT, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 18-1336-TSC
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)

REPORT OF THE PARTIES’ PLANNING MEETING

Defendants, Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), and others (collectively

“Defendants”), and Plaintiffs, Daniel A. Umbert, Erroll Alexander Eaton, Justin Lane

Bargeron, Gary James LeComte and Kevin Francisco Borquez (“Plaintiffs”), respectfully

submit this Report regarding their counsels’ meeting and confer, pursuant to Local Rule

16.3 and this Court’s Minute Order of October 25, 2019.

Statement of Claims and Defenses

Plaintiffs challenge the Defendants’ erroneous denial of firearm transfers and seek

to have Defendants correct Plaintiffs’ records and to have the Defendants approve the

transfer of the related firearm to Plaintiffs under 18 U.S.C. § 925A. Additionally,

Plaintiffs allege that their due process rights and second amendment rights are violated as

Defendants erroneously believe Plaintiffs are prohibited person and refuse to process

appeals for National Firearm Act regulated firearms. As to Plaintiff LeComte, Defendants

have unlawfully shifted the burden for LeComte to prove he is not prohibited rather than

Defendants proving he is prohibited which violates his due process rights and second
Case 1:18-cv-01336-TSC Document 26 Filed 11/06/19 Page 2 of 4

amendment rights.

Defendants believe their actions comported with the applicable statutory

standards and Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Topics in Local Rule 16.3(c)

The parties submit the following information regarding the 16 areas listed in

Local Rule 16.3(c):

1. The parties agree that the case is likely to be resolved through dispositive

motions. No such motion is currently pending.

2. The parties propose a deadline of 7 days after the Initial Scheduling Conference

for amending the pleadings and adding parties.

3. The parties do not agree to referral to a magistrate.

4. The parties do not know the prospects of settlement at this time. The case does

not involve a claim for monetary damages (other than attorney’s fees and costs).

5. The parties do not recommend ADR at this time.

6. The case should be resolved on summary judgment motions, after discovery.

The parties suggest a briefing schedule that runs after the close of discovery: 30 days for

Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment; 30 days for Defendants’ opposition and cross motion;

14 days for Plaintiffs’ reply and cross opposition; and 14 days for Defendants’ cross reply.

7. The parties do not wish to dispense with initial disclosures, but recommend a

deadline of 14 days after the initial scheduling conference.

8. The parties ask for 180 days for discovery, which they expect will consist

mostly, perhaps entirely of written discovery. The parties suggest a deadline of 45 days after

2
Case 1:18-cv-01336-TSC Document 26 Filed 11/06/19 Page 3 of 4

the initial scheduling conference for serving written discovery requests, and to use the standard

deadlines for responses thereto. A protective order does not appear necessary at this time.

9. No anticipated issues regarding ESI.

10. No anticipated issues regarding claims of privilege.

11. The parties do not expect to need expert testimony.

12. N/A, as this is not a class action.

13. No need for bifurcation.

14. Because the parties expect the case to be decided by dispositive motions, they

ask the Court not to set a date for the pretrial conference at this time

15. The parties ask the Court not to set a trial date at this time.

16. Two items here: (a) Counsel for Plaintiffs respectfully ask for leave to appear by

telephone at the initial scheduling conference. Defendant has no objection. (b) Counsel for

Plaintiffs ask the Court to avoid the following dates in scheduling the initial scheduling

conference: November 10-20, 24-28, 2019; and December 24, 2019, to January 10, 2020.

November 6, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Stephen D. Stamboulieh JESSIE K. LIU, D.C. Bar #472845


Stephen D. Stamboulieh United States Attorney for the District of Columbia
STAMBOULIEH LAW, PLLC
P.O. Box 4008 DANIEL F. VAN HORN, D.C. Bar #924092
Madison, MS 39130 Assistant United States Attorney
(601) 852-3440
stephen@sdslaw.us /s/ Alan Burch
D.C. District Court Bar #MS0009 ALAN BURCH, D.C. Bar #470655
Assistant United States Attorney
Alan Alexander Beck United States Attorney’s Office, Civil Division
ALAN A. BECK, ESQ. 555 Fourth St., NW
2692 Harcourt Drive Washington, DC 20530

3
Case 1:18-cv-01336-TSC Document 26 Filed 11/06/19 Page 4 of 4

San Diego, CA 92103 (202) 252-2550, alan.burch@usdoj.gov


(619) 905-9105
alan.alexander.beck@gmail.com Counsel for Defendant
D.C. District Court Bar #HI001

Counsel for Plaintiffs